"systematic reflection on phenomena, designed to explain them and to show how they are related to each other in meaningful, intelligent pattern, instead of being merely random items in a incoherent universe"

theory

2 types of theory

normative and empirical

how things "ought" to be based on some kind of ethics, morals, or value judgement

normative

how things are the way they are, outcomes, and is based on rigorous tests and proofs. (causal) Also is developed by induction , deduction or both(aka taking facts and hypothesizes why it might have occurred)

empirical

true or false: no such thing as "proven"

true

How to judge a theory?

importance of concepts

clear and precise(easily understood)

Simple as possible(few variables)

plausible

logical consistency

testable and falsfiable

want as much empirical evidence as possible

generalizable

will link 3 levels of analysis

approach that insists that we can have objectivity

positivist approach

approach that there is no objective reality because the world is based on interpretation and nothing is value free

post positivist approach

was first expressed by Kenneth Waltz and can be used to analyze almost any topic, not just war

importance of "levels of analysis"

level refers to distinctive traits, experiences, and behavior of those responsible for making important decisions on behalf of state and non-state actors, as well as ordinary citizens who behavior has important political consequences

individual level

analytical approach to the study of world politics that emphasizes how internal attributes of state influence their foreign policy behavior

state level

emphasizes impact of international structures and processes on behavior on global actors (Waltz emphasizes this level as being the key)

lays foundation for other types of realism and they are meant to counter it
also can be distinct but misunderstood when understanding international affairs, not inmoral

classical realism

key assumptions of realists

1. States are key actors

2. international politics "is conflictual b/c of anarchy"

3. capabilities determine hierarchy

4. States are rational actors

5. foreign policy is different than international relations

6. power is the key concept

differences between foreign policy and international relations?

can't have foreign policy(reaction to international affairs) without international relations

international politics is less structured and can't be controlled, but foreign policy can be controlled

Differences between realists?

levels of analysis

methodological

purpose of their work

2500 yrs of work
starting pt. is always questions of order, justice and change
community promotes stability but are fragile and easily undermined
great powers are their own worst enemies
key is always an effective central authority or lack there of

classical realism

father of modern political realism not just classical realism

Morgenthau

central assumptions of neorealism

Structure determines behavior

subnational characteristics unimportant

different, but the same(difference b/w unit levels w/ actors behave in the same way over the concern for security)

position all that matters

importance of anarchy

3 factors defining structure (neorealism)

ordering principles(organization of authority)

character of the units (primary actor determines behavior for the system)

attributes of actors (distribution of capabilities)

ability of a system to endure over time

stability

arguments for multipolarity

cross pressure

# os allies

# of mediators

slows arms races

no ability to become preoccupied

lower levels of antagonism

their ambiguous nature

historical/low intensity

theoretical basis in favor of multipolarity

based primarily on defensive realism

Central argument: national interests of states would lead them to react to any attempt by rival states to change the balance of power through the construction of counterbalancing alliances of ultimately through war itself

balance of power creates stability

arguments against multipolarity

increased opportunity for conflict

interest diversity

"fixed pie"(only so much power to go around)

increased misception and miscalculations

more likely of unequal distribution

risk adverse and risk seeking

arguments in favor of bipolarity

solid balance

war anywhere could equal general war

simplicity(only have on worry about one other power)

great power pressure on allies

only one dyad(2 actors/bilateral relationship) to manage

balance of power simplified

small state shifting doesn't matter

historical stability

arguments against bipolarity

intense hostility(very stable but has high hostility)

reduced meditators

crisis management issue

third world conflict more tolerable

drawbacks to clarity

What is unipolarity?

sometimes seen as a transition system

relatively understudied

common assumption as # of poles decrease stability and peace increase

clarity benefits but multiple problems

a system that contains one state with an overwhelming advantage in capabilities

unipolar

Drawbacks to unipolarity

(primarily an offensive world)

no status competitions

a freed up unipolar power

a divided great power

management issues miscalculations by opponents

clarity but difficulties in calculating cost/benefits

policy implications? (polarity notes of neorealism section)

peace is maintained through balance of power

theorists do not advocate a conscious effort to change one system to another

concern really is power transition

What are the conclusions about polarity?

relationships may vary

research produce different results with different indicators

distribution of power is only weakly related(if at all) to the onset of the war, but is associated with certain types of war

war occurs frequently in all types of systems

it is the inequality in the distribution of power between hegemon and its primary challenger combined with the support of the status quo by the hegemon's allies that keeps peace

power transition theory

the rise of potential rivals? (pwr transition theory)

industrialization

modernization

size and growth rates

Combination approach? (neoclassical realism)

importance of context(system)

Relative power

importance of state power

theory informs foreign policy

states attempt to act with ordered preferences having security at the top but is based on how they perceive the situation around them

neoclassical realist rationality

Primary prediction of neoclassical realism?

long term goal is security but may not reflect day to day reality

long narratives are used

utilizes 2nd and 1st images to reflect this inconsistent behavior...thus once again no uniform state, no uniform behavior

Whether a state will balance is based on? (schweller and non-unified actor)

willingness

"ability"

What does make up the state? (schweller and non-unified actor)

elite consensus

government/regime vulnerability

social cohesion

elite cohesion

(now, these come together and the combination or degree will ultimately matter on what is of interest to the state or what it may accomplish)